Certain progressive leaning blogs such as Talking Points Memo and Obsidian Wings have started to voice the sentiment that Clinton is starting to look desperate, has little chance of winning (Slate has a Clinton Death Watch feature), and her only path appears to be close to reckless attacks on Obama that is simply bad for the party (or simply bad). When Joe Conanson, past assurances of neutrality aside (hey, I sorta criticized her last summer about something! meanwhile, I had two columns concerned about Obama ... equal time!), joins the party ... well, some tipping point has arrived.
TPM has joined in on ridicule, this time sadly in respect to its hero Bill Clinton, on the attempt to spin things to show how really she is pretty close to tied to Obama. You know, by not counting caucus states, or states she didn't lose, or maybe Michigan and Florida (this doesn't quite work, since recent polls have Michigan about split). Not counting touchdowns, the Giants/Pats were tied at the end of the Super Bowl etc. This deserves our scorn -- if she was ahead, her campaign would not be doing this shit. Furthermore, Obama won a few states that will be key swing states in the Fall. The Kerry/Gore barely win approach didn't quite work well in winning "big" states alone.
Balkinization has had a few entries on how the means used to select candidates matter. The Republicans, for instance, have a winner take all method that allowed McCain to win at a quicker rate. This reflects the Electoral College technique used in all but two states, something not compelled by the Constitution, and not even how it was expected to be done originally either. The winner take all system would have helped Hillary Clinton, given how she would have picked up various big states. But, how things played out -- not just because I like the candidate better -- is a better approach. [As to those two states, a few more are experimenting with another interesting approach, that is addressed here.]
In fact, to the degree it took an interest in voters throughout the country, it underlines the value of not just relying on national popular vote as well. The key, however, is that there was not a winner take all system -- this underlines that it is not just the EC approach alone that is the problem. In fact, when you think about it, if two candidates split 51/49 (even a bit more of a spread), but one has more broad based support, a decent argument can be made that the latter person is a better bet. The problem with the EC in practice is at least two-fold -- winner take all systems skewer results, plus it tends to be that certain candidates dominate some part of the country. The Blue/Red concept; the Election of 1860 -- one where the EC surely could have helped -- underlines the point.
There is a corresponding argument that people who say "if x loses, I won't support y in November" are idiots. TPM overdid this argument though if they ignore the significant problems the HC brings to the table -- iow, the sentiment you can't be a baby is one thing, let's not try to argue that at the end of the day there's basically not a dime's worth of difference between the two Democrats. TPM got a bit of backlash from some who thought he was leaning that way, had a follow-up post clarifying the point and later comments basically underline the point. A vote for HC will simply put be something of a nose holding deal -- she has even tainted her Senate career here.
Some will say that about Obama, while others will have a range of enthusiasm for the guy, but it does seem that the net would go his way -- especially in certain important states, more will feel comfortable with this "second" choice. Anyway, let me end on a Samantha Power note, since she was on yesterday's repeat of The Colbert Report (where she said Clinton isn't a monster and there are three strong candidates out there ... hmm) and I also saw her on C-SPAN (with the author of Reading Lolita in Iran, which I couldn't get into) promoting her new book. Eric Alterman has a good piece on how she was treated as a sacrificial lamb and the crude way it went down.
Is it baseball season yet? Almost. All these preseason games accessible by tv/radio -- two more last night, one on WGN -- basically have made baseball a March to October deal, with a few games in February and even November (if the World Series is extended) as well. Toss in all the trade and steroid talk, it is as if we really didn't have a break. Not that this is a totally bad thing.